The Harper government passed a law where if you committed a offence with a firearm, you had a mandatory 4 year sentence in addition to any other sentence. Problem was the Crown usually plead the 4 year sentence away. So much for mandatory.

Supreme Court (or a Provinial Court) struck it down as excessive. The Harper government tried to appeal or reinstate it But lost the election. Liberals have repealed it I believe.

__________________
Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck I wasn't thinking far enough ahead for an outcome, I was ranting. By definition, a rant doesn't imply much forethought.....

How profound, words to live by- 'Note veryone gets the same version of me, one person might tell you I have a beautiful soul, another might say I am a cold hearted and unsympathetic. Believe them both. I don't treat people badly, I treat them accordingly.

From what I have seen on this tonite, it may have been a case of the lesser of two evils, was the choice he had to make, as to what the gov't was offering to him. And perhaps, according to statements attributed to him, he doesn't want to touch a gun again.
He is fully exposed to the bad guys around there now as well, as being unarmed and vulnerable. He isn't out of trouble yet by a long way, this put him in a bad situation, in the middle of both sides of the law.

So, although this incident (for which he was acquitted) happened with a restricted firearm (a handgun), the crown awarded him with a fine and a 10 year firearms prohibition for unsafe storage of an UNRESTRICTED firearm (a hunting rifle, .22 rifle, or a shotgun most likely).

This not only seems punitive. It is punitive. Having failed to bulldoze a jury into convicting him for something that the evidence could not prove was an intentional shooting, they simply punish him excessively for something else.

I wonder how many firearms owners in Canada could also be charged with unsafe storage of an unrestricted firearm, because they have not complied with the exact letter of the law. Especially when you consider that what safe storage of a firearm is has never been properly defined.

It has been suggested that hopefully the other members of Mr. Stanley's family will maintain PALs in order that the household not be without a firearm. A long gun is a practical necessity for rural residents, not only for pest control, but for defense against the increasing likelihood of home invasion in these increasingly vicious times.

Obviously, RCMP detachments are spread paper thin, such that help may be 20 or 30 miles away (if officers are even available).
So, even in the more densely populated southern halves of Alberta and Saskatchewan, they would be no help at all to respond effectively in an emergency. Extreme winter weather, blizzards, and closed highways might make RCMP response all but impossible as well.

Yet, it is unlikely that the family of Mr. Stanley will be allowed to keep any firearms at all in the home, because they are now living with a man with a 10 year firearms prohibition. The RCMP would argue that Mr. Stanley would have access to those firearms, regardless of how well they were locked up.

So the Crown and the RCMP has effectively punished not only Mr. Stanley, but also his entire family, who were not charged or convicted of any crime.

The pistol used in the shooting death was not a part of the storage charges. That pistol was being 'used', not stored. The dropped charge of unsafe storage of a restricted weapon was related to a semi-automatic pistol that was photographed (as evidence) in an unlocked strong-box in a closet. These charges were not related to the criminal charge of murder other than the discovery after the fact. Indeed these charges would apply to anyone and should be. There is a reason why people are expected to comply with the law of the land. Acreage dwellers are not exempt.

As to the argument that he is/will be harassed by roving gangs of vigilantes has proven unfounded and there is proof the First Nations protesters are doing something constructive with their objections to the situation. There has been no talk of retribution except from paranoid xenophobic commentators, thankfully, and this story can fade into the past as I am sure would be the outcome needed by these families.

The pistol used in the shooting death was not a part of the storage charges. That pistol was being 'used', not stored. The dropped charge of unsafe storage of a restricted weapon was related to a semi-automatic pistol that was photographed (as evidence) in an unlocked strong-box in a closet. These charges were not related to the criminal charge of murder other than the discovery after the fact. Indeed these charges would apply to anyone and should be. There is a reason why people are expected to comply with the law of the land. Acreage dwellers are not exempt.

As to the argument that he is/will be harassed by roving gangs of vigilantes has proven unfounded and there is proof the First Nations protesters are doing something constructive with their objections to the situation. There has been no talk of retribution except from paranoid xenophobic commentators, thankfully, and this story can fade into the past as I am sure would be the outcome needed by these families.

Free

I don't recall anyone claiming that Mr. Stanley would be exposed to "roving gangs of vigilantes". This vastly exaggerated misinterpretation of what has been said, as well as his charcterization of anyone who suggests that a rural farm might experience a home invasion as "xenophobic commentators" is propaganda at its worst.

The fact that Mr. Stanley DID in fact experience an invasion of his rural property by people with criminal records, and that theft of property occurred, and that one of them was in fact armed, proves that a home invasion and associated violence in a rural home is a distinct possibility.

So while the silly and exaggerated propaganda claim of "roving bands of vigilantes" would never occur, home invasion by random strangers with criminal intent is a distinct possibility.

One would wonder who Freedom55 actually is, and why he is promoting such a Pro-Crown stance on a firearms forum. He certainly seems to have very detailed and explicit knowledge of how Mr. Stanley's handgun was stored and how that related to the charges.

He broke multiple firearm laws and accidentally killed a person with a firearm.

A 10 year firearm ban seems very reasonable especially considering that it sounds like it is a common ban for much lesser cases.

Stanley did very well to walk from this whole situation with only one minor fine. He likely made money considering the financial support he received.

I hope that the Go fund me does cover the families expenses, but I sincerely doubt that they will cover all financial losses that resulted from this incident. As for the fine and prohibition, they were supposedly for the illegal storage of firearms, not to punish him for the accidental shooting.

I spoke with a cop I know last week, he says he has studied the evidence very closely and he feels the jury totally made the right decision regardless of any goof-ups from Crown witnesses. Says the evidence for it being an accidental shooting was very strong. I hope the man comes out with a fat bank account for all he has been through. He and his wife went to bed as normal that night, not knowing their lives would be forever altered. Ironically, this cop grew up on a farm 6 miles away. His dad is still on the farm and the stories of the crime they are subjected to is ridiculous. With everything I heard, I can understand why his guns were not locked up. He does not deserve to lose firearm privileges for 10 years. The law may say otherwise, and he will have to live with that, but he doesn't deserve it. There is a difference. That's my two cents.

I spoke with a cop I know last week, he says he has studied the evidence very closely and he feels the jury totally made the right decision regardless of any goof-ups from Crown witnesses. Says the evidence for it being an accidental shooting was very strong. I hope the man comes out with a fat bank account for all he has been through. He and his wife went to bed as normal that night, not knowing their lives would be forever altered. Ironically, this cop grew up on a farm 6 miles away. His dad is still on the farm and the stories of the crime they are subjected to is ridiculous. With everything I heard, I can understand why his guns were not locked up. He does not deserve to lose firearm privileges for 10 years. The law may say otherwise, and he will have to live with that, but he doesn't deserve it. There is a difference. That's my two cents.

Just for the education of us all, would you mind listing all of the"multiple" firearms laws that Mr. Stanley broke?

- Not unsafe storage of a restricted weapon - that was unsubstantiated.
- Unsafe storage of an unrestricted firearm was substantiated.

But what other firearms laws were broken?
What other firearms laws has he been charged under?

Also, stating that Mr. Stanley actually profited from the donations received sounds like you have a distinct prejudice against a man receiving a fair trial without being financially destroyed.

he is stating about the same as you did stating that it's unlikely that his family members will not be able to get PAL''s renewed.
Rav Yak did not state that he actually did, he thought he may have.
Lots of guessing going on here and no one knows for sure until things actually have happened , then opinions like the verdict being fair in a trial are just that- opinions.
Cat.

__________________
what power? FFP--SFP?paralax? Heck with it, I'm screwing on the Centrals and diopter- pass me my single point sling!

he is stating about the same as you did stating that it's unlikely that his family members will not be able to get PAL''s renewed.
Rav Yak did not state that he actually did, he thought he may have.
Lots of guessing going on here and no one knows for sure until things actually have happened , then opinions like the verdict being fair in a trial are just that- opinions.
Cat.

I did not state that I believed that it was unlikely that Mr. Stanley's family members would be able to get their PALs renewed. I stated that they would very probably not be permitted to keep firearms in their home because they live with Mr. Stanley, who now has a firearms prohibition.

As to what else you are saying about Rav Yak, I have no idea what these cryptic statements mean.

As for opinions being merely opinions, I would have thought that this was obvious. As with yourself, the observations that I express are merely that. Opinions.

So, although this incident (for which he was acquitted) happened with a restricted firearm (a handgun), the crown awarded him with a fine and a 10 year firearms prohibition for unsafe storage of an UNRESTRICTED firearm (a hunting rifle, .22 rifle, or a shotgun most likely).

This not only seems punitive. It is punitive. Having failed to bulldoze a jury into convicting him for something that the evidence could not prove was an intentional shooting, they simply punish him excessively for something else.

I wonder how many firearms owners in Canada could also be charged with unsafe storage of an unrestricted firearm, because they have not complied with the exact letter of the law. Especially when you consider that what safe storage of a firearm is has never been properly defined.

Thousands? Tens of thousands? A hundred thousand? All gun owners?

Stanley was facing two charges; one for unsafe storage of a restricted firearm and one for unsafe storage of a non-restricted that dealt with six firearms the Crown said didn’t have trigger locks.

The fine, firearms prohibition and surrender of his firearms was a joint submission by the defence and the Crown. Based on Stanley’s statement that he never wants to own a gun again, it’s probably safe to say that he doesn’t care about the prohibition and that the fine is less than what it would have cost him to fight the charges in court.

The rules for storing a non-restricted or a restricted are laid or clearly and there is plenty of precedent that has been set by the courts.

There was nothing cryptic at all in my reply .
As for your statement about his family members not being able to get a PAL because of him you are wrong . I know people who have received them that are in the same situation .
Cat

__________________
what power? FFP--SFP?paralax? Heck with it, I'm screwing on the Centrals and diopter- pass me my single point sling!

There was nothing cryptic at all in my reply .
As for your statement about his family members not being able to get a PAL because of him you are wrong . I know people who have received them that are in the same situation .
Cat

I didn't understand your comments, but who cares? It's silly to argue about that.

However, again I will state that I DID NOT state that the family members would be unable to get PALS. Read the post, for God sake.

Again, I DID say that because they do indeed live with Mr. Stanley that IMHO
that they would probably not be allowed to keep firearms in the house.

They would not be refused PALs, however.
I thought that I made this very clear.

I spoke with a cop I know last week, he says he has studied the evidence very closely and he feels the jury totally made the right decision regardless of any goof-ups from Crown witnesses. Says the evidence for it being an accidental shooting was very strong. I hope the man comes out with a fat bank account for all he has been through. He and his wife went to bed as normal that night, not knowing their lives would be forever altered. Ironically, this cop grew up on a farm 6 miles away. His dad is still on the farm and the stories of the crime they are subjected to is ridiculous. With everything I heard, I can understand why his guns were not locked up. He does not deserve to lose firearm privileges for 10 years. The law may say otherwise, and he will have to live with that, but he doesn't deserve it. There is a difference. That's my two cents.

This is truth. Stanley probably got the best possible outcome of a bad situation. He should never have been in that situation, but it's in the past now.

Stanley killed a man, doesn't matter what the reasons are now, it's something he's going to have to live with for the rest of his life. I wouldn't want that on my conscience, he probably doesn't either. Give the man a break.

...One would wonder who Freedom55 actually is, and why he is promoting such a Pro-Crown stance on a firearms forum. He certainly seems to have very detailed and explicit knowledge of how Mr. Stanley's handgun was stored and how that related to the charges.

Only one would wonder and that would be the guy who joined this conversation long after the main thrust of it had been thoroughly discussed before that 'one' joined the group. Everyone else knows my position and I say your theories are nonsense made from fragments of your limited knowledge and contain more than a few inconsistencies and misrepresentations of verifiable facts. For example: this is not a firearms forum, per se.

Stanley was facing two charges; one for unsafe storage of a restricted firearm and one for unsafe storage of a non-restricted that dealt with six firearms the Crown said didn’t have trigger locks.

The fine, firearms prohibition and surrender of his firearms was a joint submission by the defence and the Crown. Based on Stanley’s statement that he never wants to own a gun again, it’s probably safe to say that he doesn’t care about the prohibition and that the fine is less than what it would have cost him to fight the charges in court.

The rules for storing a non-restricted or a restricted are laid or clearly and there is plenty of precedent that has been set by the courts.

While I don't necessarily disagree with your rehashing of established facts, I don't know whether Mr. Stanley cares about having a firearms prohibition on his record or not. I do think that this firearms prohibition will prevent Mr. Stanley from traveling outside of Canada, and I am sure that he cares very much about this.

Also, safe storage requirements don't necessarily require that the firearms be trigger-locked. They can alternatively be stored without a trigger lock in an inoperable condition, such as with the bolt removed. They can also be stored without trigger locks in a secure locked container not easily broken open, separate from ammunition. (Though, what constitutes the precise definition of that container is not defined)

Also, firearms used for predator or pest control in a rural area where firearms may be legally discharged, may be temporarily stored in an operable condition, and not locked in a container, and without trigger locks, so long as they are unloaded.

I also find it very sad that a Canadian citizen is forced to accept a firearms prohibition because he can't afford the legal costs to defend himself against the charges in court.

Considering that this is a pro-gun firearms forum, there sure seem to be a lot of members who have agenda to defend the Crown.

While I don't necessarily disagree with your rehashing of established facts, I don't know whether Mr. Stanley cares about having a firearms prohibition on his record or not.

This will prevent him from traveling into the United States and probably elsewhere, and in that respect, I'm sure that he does care very much.
And, the fact that he was forced to cave in and accept the prohibition because he could not afford to fight the charges in court speaks very poorly about justice in Canada.

However, you do not refute that safe storage in Canada remains vague and undefined, and that a great many Canadians might find themselves charged despite their efforts to comply with the law.

Funny how so many people who are members of a pro-gun firearms forum seem to have an agenda to defend the Crown, isn't it?

Seems counter-intuitive don't you think?

Where does it say he was forced to accept a plea because of his lack of finances? The only thing that has been reported is that the outcome was the result of a joint submission by the Crown and defence.

As far as safe storage being undefined, the opposite is true. The laws regarding storage as available for all to read online in the criminal code, the RCMP list them on their website and they even publish a little pamphlet. There have also been multiple court cases that set precedent, the one that immediately comes to mind is the Ontario case that found a school locker with a padlock met the requirements of safe storage.

With regards to the PAL issue, his family would still be eligible to hold a PAL/RPAL and store firearms in their home. The fact that someone with a prohibition order lives there would not be automatic grounds for a refusal on its own

And as far as your claim of me being “pro-Crown”, I’m not. The only thing that I support is the use of facts by both sides of this, or any, argument.

Where does it say he was forced to accept a plea because of his lack of finances? The only thing that has been reported is that the outcome was the result of a joint submission by the Crown and defence.

As far as safe storage being undefined, the opposite is true. The laws regarding storage as available for all to read online in the criminal code, the RCMP list them on their website and they even publish a little pamphlet. There have also been multiple court cases that set precedent, the one that immediately comes to mind is the Ontario case that found a school locker with a padlock met the requirements of safe storage.

With regards to the PAL issue, his family would still be eligible to hold a PAL/RPAL and store firearms in their home. The fact that someone with a prohibition order lives there would not be automatic grounds for a refusal on its own

And as far as your claim of me being “pro-Crown”, I’m not. The only thing that I support is the use of facts by both sides of this, or any, argument.

The fact that the cases you mention even made it to court should be proof that the storage laws are not as clear as they should be. If the regulations are so clear, why couldn't the police and prosecutors understand them?

He broke multiple firearm laws and accidentally killed a person with a firearm.

A 10 year firearm ban seems very reasonable especially considering that it sounds like it is a common ban for much lesser cases.

Stanley did very well to walk from this whole situation with only one minor fine. He likely made money considering the financial support he received.

I was specifically commenting on the fire arms bans that get handed out for every sentence thats unrelated to fire arms. Stanleys sentence is reasonable... hard to say otherwise when it was a joint submission betwee the crown and defence.

Where does it say he was forced to accept a plea because of his lack of finances? The only thing that has been reported is that the outcome was the result of a joint submission by the Crown and defence.

As far as safe storage being undefined, the opposite is true. The laws regarding storage as available for all to read online in the criminal code, the RCMP list them on their website and they even publish a little pamphlet. There have also been multiple court cases that set precedent, the one that immediately comes to mind is the Ontario case that found a school locker with a padlock met the requirements of safe storage.

With regards to the PAL issue, his family would still be eligible to hold a PAL/RPAL and store firearms in their home. The fact that someone with a prohibition order lives there would not be automatic grounds for a refusal on its own

And as far as your claim of me being “pro-Crown”, I’m not. The only thing that I support is the use of facts by both sides of this, or any, argument.

In your previous post you stated that the fine and the firearms prohibition was less than it would have cost him to defend himself in court. Why would he have simply accepted the prohibition and fine unless he could not afford to defend himself any longer?

The fact that MULTIPLE court cases have had to have been fought to establish whether a school locker and other gun lockers constituted safe storage or not proves that the actual definition of a secured locked container has not been defined.

As far as whether his family members would be eligible to hold PALs, I have not disputed that they actually would. I did state however, that it was unlikely that they would be able keep firearms in the home since Mr. Stanley has a 10 year firearms prohibition, regardless of whether they held PALs.

And, I notice that you use the term "automatic grounds for refusal", meaning that you don't know whether they would or would not be permitted to keep firearms in the home or not, and consider the possibilty that this might happen.

As for your assertion that you are not pro-Crown, if you aren't then you are a doing a damned fine impression of someone who is.